The Belt and Road Initiative: conflict of laws and dispute resolution

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to determine the adaptability of China’s legal system in recognizing and enforcing foreign judgements in China.

Design/methodology/approach

Academic articles, case law and books are examined as are relevant reports by various regulatory authorities and organizations.

Findings

Historically, Chinese courts have strictly adhered to “de facto reciprocity”, which made it difficult for foreign judgements to be recognized and enforced in China. Fortunately, Chinese courts have since abandoned their rigid adherence to de facto reciprocity, and have instead, used flexible tests of reciprocity such as de jure reciprocity, reciprocal commitment and reciprocal understand/consensus. Accordingly, this would facilitate the recovery of stolen assets, as there is a lower threshold for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgement.

Research limitations/implications

There are limited data available in relation to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements pertaining to the recovery of stolen assets. Any discussions within this paper are based on the impressionistic observations of this author, which may not reflect the true state of affairs within the Belt and Road Initiative.

Practical implications

Those who are interested in examining the viability in recognizing and enforcing foreign judgements relating to stolen assets will have an interest in this topic.

Originality/value

The value of the paper is to demonstrate the difficulties in recognizing and enforcing foreign judgements in China in relation to stolen assets.

Citation

Tan, V. (2024), "The Belt and Road Initiative: conflict of laws and dispute resolution", Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-12-2023-0310